Remember when Russia cried about Space X wanting to use robotic docking like they do and instead they made Space X dock using the arm?

They were afraid Space x would bump into the station a little to hard.

Well how about now? they are lucky they didn’t rip the station apart.
I bet those pressure doors slammed shut pretty quick. Along with all the passengers back sides.

Although this is a different rotational axis than I had thought, the ends of the solar arrays would have experienced G forces about as I had calculated in another thread (less than 1/1000th G):
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/nauka-engines-fire-unexpectedly-after-docking-forces-cancellation-of-starliner-launch/#comment-1164045

For these solar arrays, the real forces would have come from the increase and decrease in rotation rates. Again, this was probably small, but some amount of force would have been experienced by the solar array mount points.

The ISS is occasionally reoriented, as it was for the docking of Nauka, but Manley did not tell us how fast ISS rotates, or the rate of increase in the rotation rates, when they make these maneuvers. NASA undoubtedly can easily figure out the theoretical stresses on the solar arrays and other important connections, but it would be interesting to know what these are for both normal rotations and for this “out of control” rotation.

The quote that gets me”…that Nauka was not only firing its thrusters, but that it was trying to actually pull away from the space station that it had just docked with.” The station was moved more than 45 degrees.

Neither the Life Support Modules nor the Universal Docking Module they were to attach to ever made orbit. I don’t think they were even built. The Russians usually use a Progress capsule docked to the Service Module aft port for orbital reboost in order to save wear and tear on the Service Module itself. Only when no Progress capsule is docked there will they use the Service Module engines.

Are they saying that the Dragon and the US docking ports are not strong enough to do it or that they were not originally designed for it?

I don’t know about the Dragon, but the USOS docking ports can handle the load just fine, as evidenced by the fact that NASA intends to use Starliner for occasional orbital reboost.

No idea if the incident caused any damage, but I wonder.

The Russians do not use the capsule for this. They use the attached life support module. So why couldn’t the Dragon do the same?

Are they saying that the Dragon and the US docking ports are not strong enough to do it or that they were not originally designed for it?

Russia does not have the base tech manufacturing economy to keep a fully operational and ever evolving space program running.
They have used the same Soyuz and Progress capsules for the last 40 years and only updated them at NASA’s insistence and financing. The Soyuz could not even fit an astronaut over 5 foot 6 inches until NASA financed the alteration so Americans could fit. We even had to give them the tech to reduce the size and weight of internal components so a third person would fit.

Of course the computer error is ultimately of human origin. My point was that (ironically enough) the people who are supposed to know better, seem to have far more faith in lines of code than experience would warrant. Back in the day, we knew these machines (and their programming) were as flawed as the humans who created them. These days they are the tin gods of a new religion.

I know that telemetry is transmitted to the ground, but is there a record of commands and operations done on the Russian side? I hate to use the term “black box flight recorder”, but do the Russians have that for their systems (we call it an Event Recorder)? I hope to hell so.

Solovyov is shooting off his mouth on speculations in a cavalier way that makes me wonder whether they are taking this seriously or are just going to pretend that it is a one-off event that will never happen again. If they think the latter, then we can see why they are having such a difficult time getting their hardware to behave properly. To have quality control, you have to control the quality. This was very poor quality hardware and operations, and now the Russians are saying that the software and personnel professionalism are low quality, too.

It is one thing to joke about Russia’s quality problems and their cavalier attitude toward them ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMZNx7bxZes#t=151 ) but it is another when those problems adversely affect hundred billion dollar space stations.

Roscosmos is making Boeing management look good.

Rick and Morty
“What Is My Purpose?”
https://youtu.be/X7HmltUWXgs
1:00

Might have been one of those self-aware algorithms our tech-lords like to worship.

Either way, Bob, it was human error. The software didn’t write and test itself.

Wouldn’t be the first time they forgot that the Earth rotates in space., but three hours does seem suspicious. Once before a Soyuz escape system fired after the launch was aborted, after the Earth had rotated beyond the “off-course” tolerance for the escape system, about 17 degrees..

And those “short-term software failures” are the worst kind, because they often occur in the highly-dynamic software module located between the ears.